Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Wasserman


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. —  The Earwig   talk 01:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Jack Wasserman

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article has existed for over 15 years, yet it has nothing even close to being a reliable source. The one source in the article is an interviews, which would not add to notability on most occasions. However this gets worse, it is an interview where Wasserman was the one conducting the interview. This is essentially like using the fact that someone wrote and published a biographical sketch of someone else where they maybe made a few asides about themselves as a source to show the write of that sketch was notable. Wikipedia is supposed to be based on sources about a person, not sources by a person. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * for what it is worth the creator of this article has been blocked for 5 years. Although considering how old this article is, it is slightly surprising the article was created with a real account instead of just an IP address. Wikipedia still suffers from having had no creation or notability guidelines for the first 5 or so years of its existence.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , you have been a very frequent nominator and participant at AFD for a very long time. So, I am surprised you would make this argument.  While there are former contributors, who were subsequently blocked, who were openly or covertly trying to undermine the wikipedia from their first day there are also lots of former contributor, who are now blocked, who put in years of solid contributions.  That second group ended up being blocked for a variety of reasons: sometimes they developed one bad habit, they couldn't or wouldn't mend; sometimes there was one topic that was highly charged for them, like, say abortion, and they couldn't or wouldn't stop making biased edits around that topic and related topics.
 * For those contributors we should assume that their contributions, prior to the activity that triggered their block were good faith competent edits that shouldn't be deleted or reverted simply because they were now blocked.
 * In this particular case the revision history trivially shows that now blocked was not the sole contributor to the article.  So his initiation of the article would not be grounds to delete the article, even if we agreed to delete everything for which he had been the sole author. edits not made by Skookum1 more edits not made by Skookum1
 * So, please, never make this argument again. Geo Swan (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I am going to point out that 's indefinite block took place almost a decade after their major work on this article. Geo Swan (talk) 14:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:ANYBIO. Finding and adding more sources is a matter of cleanup not deletion per WP:ATD and WP:NEXIST.  See here for some details of the subject. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per Andrew, the sources exist and since it's not a BLP the unsourced material doesn't provide an immediate reason to delete the page. - Astrophobe  (talk) 18:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - I am not sure if this fellow is notable or not. I have never heard of him before. It looks like there may be sources here, here, here and possibly here. Not sure if those and others amount to him passing WP:GNG though. It is unacceptable that this article doesn't have any sources though. Even the one external link is broken, but it is now here, so I will fix that.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep References existed, and and I added some.  So deletion due to no references is no longer a valid justification for deletion.  Geo Swan (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I know he was a reporter for the Vancouver Sun, but it's still worth noting that they devoted almost all of the front page on April 7, 1977, to coverage of his death. He also had a (short) obit in The Globe and Mail written by The Canadian Press. Didn't find much else substantial, hence the weak keep. I have to note, though, that this from the so-called "Museum of BC Radio History" (= a blog) is not reliable and certainly not evidence of notability. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 05:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per Andrew and per the reason for deletion (no sources) no longer applying. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 06:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY. — Toughpigs (talk) 07:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. None of the sources present or cited here demonstrate substantial coverage. The best we get are local obituaries (WP:NOTMEMORIAL). That's not good enough. If he is notable, a bio of him should be included in some later source, like some work about notably Canadian journalists. Such a work has not been presented here (ping me if better sources are found and I'll reconsider my vote). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per the excellent rescue and expansion work by Geo Swan, Andrew, and Aleatory Ponderings. Cbl62 (talk) 21:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets the WP:GNG if nothing else. WP:SNOW also applies. gidonb (talk) 00:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:GNG; obituary in a newspaper of record. Bearian (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.